22 Dec 2005
The Magistrate properly selected starting points, applied the one‑third guilty plea reduction, lawfully ordered concurrent and consecutive terms while addressing totality; the aggregate 18 months is within the sentencing range and not excessive, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
15 Nov 2005
The magistrate did not err in refusing a permanent stay because the Assistant Commissioner acted within statutory powers and without evidence of bad faith; Part III interim and full classifications were administrative and would not be conclusive or determinative of Part V criminal proceedings; any prejudice from publicity or prior classifications can be managed by trial procedure and directions; a permanent stay is an exceptional remedy not justified here.
25 Aug 2004
Given the large quantity of obscene items, the notorious nature of the outlet, the appellant's extensive prior record and the Magistrate's finding as to ability to pay, the imposed sentences of eight months imprisonment on each charge and fines of $10,000 each were appropriate and not excessive; the appeal was dismissed.
14 Mar 2002
The appeal was dismissed because the trial evidence (plain clothes officer observed the appellant selling the discs) established possession for publication, the obscenity was admitted, and the magistrate's imposition of a 12 month custodial sentence was within the usual and appropriate deterrent range for a first offender in the locality absent a guilty plea.
13 Jan 1999
The original sentence of six months was inadequate given the gravity and scale of the operation and the nature of the material; an appropriate starting point was at least 12 months reduced for an early guilty plea to eight months; therefore the magistrate's sentences were set aside and replaced with concurrent sentences of eight months imprisonment on each count.
23 Jul 1998
Because the magistrate had not viewed the videos and therefore could not properly assess their obscenity, the offences should be regarded at the lower end of the seriousness scale and the total sentence was manifestly excessive; accordingly the proper disposal was to order 3 months of the second sentence to run concurrently with the first set, reducing total imprisonment from 12 to 9 months.
9 Jan 1997
The appellate court held that the Training Centre Order was excessive given the offences were not of the most serious kind and there had been no assessment of the degree of obscenity. A Detention Centre Order, providing short, sharp disciplinary treatment, was the more proportionate and appropriate order for rehabilitation in the circumstances; accordingly the Training Centre Order was set aside and substituted with a Detention Centre Order.
20 Jan 1994
The court held the Tribunal acted within jurisdiction in classifying the photograph submitted without reference to other pages because the material referred to the Tribunal can be considered independently; the initial classification procedure is an informal, non‑decisive filtering mechanism that does not constitute a determination of rights triggering Article 10 protections; Article 16 restrictions are subject to proportionality but the Ordinance's scheme and criminal process provide adequate safeguards, therefore the applicants' challenges fail and the judicial review is dismissed.
18 Aug 1987
The Court refused leave to appeal because the evidence was strong, the trial judge's factual findings were not to be disturbed, and the sentences were within statutory maxima and justified by the appellant's repeated, commercial importation and distribution of obscene tapes.
12 Oct 1984
The Court held that the synthetic male penises and the book (in particular the final two chapters advocating anal intercourse and group sex with explicit illustrations) exceed acceptable limits under community standards and are indecent/obscene for the purposes of the cited statutes; the Magistrate erred in dismissing the charges and his decisions were set aside and the matter remitted for continuation of the hearing in light of this opinion.